In 2012, Leonie Haimson was first to report the ludicrous “Pineapple and the Hare” story that embarrassed Pearson and New York State. She learned about it on her blog, the NYC Parents Blog, where teachers, principals, and students described the problems they encountered.
Once again, Leonie (a member of the board of the Network for Public Education) is first to bring the first-hand reports about the flaws in the ELA exams.
Here are some of them:
“These included overly long, dense and grade-inappropriate reading passages with numerous typos, abstruse vocabulary and confusing questions; many of which teachers themselves said they couldn’t discern the right answers. On the third grade exam, for example, an excerpt from a book called “Eating the plate” was actually fifth grade level and sixth to eighth grade interest level. There were many reading passages with Lexile levels two or three grades above the grades of students being asked to comprehend and respond to these texts.
“In 6th grade there was a poem from the 17th century that the teachers in our building read in COLLEGE. 11th grade level.”
On the eighth grade exam, one reading passage featured obscure words like “crag” and “fastnesses”. As one teacher wrote, “What are fastnesses?…I asked eight of my fellow colleagues to define this word. 1 of 8 knew the answer. Unless you are a geology major, how is this word a part of our everyday language, let alone the reading capacity of an average 8th grader? And our ESL students?”
I even asked my husband, a professor in the Geosciences department; he didn’t know what “fastnesses” meant either.
There were several passages that included commercial product placements as in years past, this time featuring the helmet manufacturer Riddell, Skittles candy, Stonyfield yogurt, and Doritos. (Riddell is being sued by a thousand NFL players for deceptive claims that their helmets protected against concussions.)…
Two new problems emerged. One was the omission from many of the test booklets of blank pages that were supposed to be used by students to plan their essays, or the titles of the pages were left out. Instructions to deal with these problems came from the state only after many children were in the midst of writing their essays or after they had completed the exams. In these cases, teachers pointed out, this represented an unfair disadvantage to their students, who were forced to either use the limited space at the front of the booklet to plan their essays or didn’t plan them at all.
But perhaps the most heartbreaking was an unforeseen but brutal consequence of the untimed nature of these exams, the major innovation made by Commissioner Elia that was supposed to reduce the stress levels of kids. Instead, many students labored for many hours, taking three to five hours per day to complete them, and sometimes more.
Here’s one comment from Facebook:
“This afternoon I saw one of my former students still working on her ELA test at 2:45 PM. Her face was pained and she looked exhausted. She had worked on her test until dismissal time for the first two days of testing as well. 18 hours. She’s 9.”
This is a travesty; no child should be subjected to such a punishing regime. It also appears to violate the NY law passed in 2014 that limits state testing time to one percent of total instructional time.
In any case, it appears that the parents who chose to opt their children out of the exams were wise to have done so. All in all, the number of opt outs seem to have held steady from last year’s 240,000, or even perhaps increased, with even higher rates of test refusals in Rockland County, NYC, and Long Island, which surpassed its record rates last year, with more than 97,000 students opting out, or about 50% of eligible kids compared to about 47% last year.

Thank you for exposing the fraud in these tests.
I can recall a time when you could not have any instructional materials with brand names of products.
You have to wonder if these “product placements” in the tests –for the helmet manufacturer Riddell, Skittles candy, Stonyfield yogurt, and Doritos. (Riddell is being sued by a thousand NFL players for deceptive claims that their helmets protected against concussion.)–are another example of profiteering by the testing companies.
LikeLike
I don’t wonder. I’m sure of it.
LikeLike
The history of (increasingly high-stakes) standardized testing is the the history of the rheephorm phrase “we know there’s some problems but we’re gonna fix ‘em rheeal rheeal soon!”
A slim inexpensive riposte to that mindless mantra of corporate education reform—and quite readable—is Banesh Hoffman, THE TYRANNY OF TESTING (2003 paperback, a republication of the 1964 edition of the 1962 original.
For those deep into their ‘closet’ reading of Common Core, that’s more than half a century of verbal promises of grit and rigor gone to waste—except for the quite practical gain in ever higher piles of loot for the test makers/sellers, er, $tudent $ucce$$.
Pineapple? Hare? From the WALL STREET JOURNAL, an interview with the author of the piece on which the test was based:
[start]
Eighth-graders who thought a passage about a pineapple and a hare on New York state tests this week made no sense, take heart: The author thinks it’s absurd too.
“It’s hilarious on the face of it that anybody creating a test would use a passage of mine, because I’m an advocate of nonsense,” Daniel Pinkwater, the renowned children’s author and accidental exam writer, said in an interview. “I believe that things mean things, but they don’t have assigned meanings.”
Pinkwater, who wrote the original story on which the test question was based, has been deluged with comments from puzzled students — and not for the first time. The passage seems to have been recycled from English tests in other states, bringing him new batches of befuddled students each time it’s used.
The original story, which Pinkwater calls a “fractured fable,” was about a race between a rabbit and an eggplant. By the time it got onto standardized tests, however, it had doubled in length and become a race between a hare and a talking pineapple, with various other animals involved. In the end, the animals eat the pineapple.
The tests can be used to determine whether a student is promoted to the next grade. Once new teacher evaluations are put in place, the tests will also affect teachers’ careers.
Pearson PLC, which created the test as part of a five-year, $32 million state contract, referred questions to the New York State Education Department. The department hasn’t returned requests for comment since Wednesday.
[end]
That’s just the first part. Read the rest—an interview with the author.
Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/04/20/daniel-pinkwater-on-pineapple-exam-nonsense-on-top-of-nonsense/
Sorry, but knowing that those all in for rheephorm are especially prone to avoiding anything that disturbs the tranquility of their Happy Place, I include a bit of the interview:
[start]
You say it’s funny people are taking it seriously, but these tests nowadays determine whether kids move on to the next grade, and they also will determine, in part, whether teachers keep their jobs.
I might have said, “They’re making a dishonest living doing these tests, but they’re doing no harm.” But maybe now they are. And certainly they’re sucking up a lot of money that could be put to better uses in education, and I think the whole thing is shameful.
Publishing in general is not a moral industry, and specialized publishing like this — where they have a captive audience and God knows what kind of long-standing relationships — might be less moral yet.
Could you answer the test questions?
Of course not. This is an exercise in Zen. This is like when the Zen master says, “Can you hear the sound of one-hand clapping?” And if you don’t answer fast enough, he whacks you with a stick. And from this you’re supposed to get enlightened. I’d like to think that the company that made the test had something like that in mind but I think basically they had nothing in mind.
[end]
But read the rest. Well worth the effort. Even if I have tried everyone’s patience with an overly long comment on this thread.
😎
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s hilarious on the face of it that anybody creating a test would use a passage of mine, because I’m an advocate of nonsense,” Daniel Pinkwater, the renowned children’s author and accidental exam writer, said in an interview.
While nonsense in its literal sense seems an apt description of the standardized testing movement, given the consequences, it is anything BUT hilarious.
“This is a travesty; no child should be subjected to such a punishing regime. It also appears to violate the NY law passed in 2014 that limits state testing time to one percent of total instructional time.”
Were it done by a teacher, it would be child abuse. Why is it different when it is mandated by the state?
LikeLike
No one should forget that Governor CUOMO still owns this MESS! He bought it through Race to the Top, and he rammed and rushed it through for purely political purposes that have now blown up in his face. And despite all of the rhetoric and BS that Cumo and Elia have touted, and despite the testing moratorium, nothing important has changed for the better.
Common Core in NYS is a 100% FAIL.
Test-and Punish in NYS is a 100% FAIL.
No educator in their right mind continues implementing a failed idea, year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year year after year after year after year after year after year after year.
We are witnessing the disintegration of a once proud and preeminent public school system. Shame on all who let the madness continue.
LikeLike
“. . . the first-hand reports about the flaws in the ELA exams.”
The beforehand report by Noel Wilson not only shows the flaws of any standardized exam but also the errors and falsehoods in their conceptual foundations that render them COMPLETELY INVALID. To understand why read and comprehend his never refuted nor rebutted seminal dissertation “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
TAGO! 😉
LikeLike
Don’t worry, at least the following WILL NOT be scored against
student writing on NYS Common Core assessments:
Mechanics (spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and paragraph structure) , usage, syntax, proper sentence formation, and complexity of vocabulary.
Now that’s what no one would call rigor or college and career readiness.
LikeLike
RAT2: Yes–mechanics are just NOT important in the real world…not in the least. We have relatives who are involved with editing & producing (one w/a major network news affiliate in a big city), & they have repeatedly vocalized their astonishment at the poor quality of writing that is submitted for their approval. The news producer has stated that his part in “editing” is not to correct mechanics (the poor spelling & punctuation is beyond atrocious, according to him) but to edit content for factual accuracy.
Yes, these “standardized” (NOT, & never will be) tests are most certainly preparing our students for careers.
&, Duane, you can NEVER repeat Wilson enough here! There are new readers all the time, & everyone needs to be educated–even though Pear$on & ed. reformers think not–especially in the case of our kids. Te$ting, con$tant te$t prep.= no education.
LikeLike
This comment says its all:
This afternoon I was to correct book 3 of the 7th grade ELA. I can’t believe no one is up in arms about this test. First of all the extended response was based on two EXCERPTS. The question had to do with the “chances” the main characters took and what they learned from them. The “chances” they took involved inviting a guest over to their house (which, if true, makes no sense anyway.) However, in one story the main character didn’t invite the guest at all. (Let me add I was an English major before I was an English teacher and I have my graduate work in English Lit.) The idea of “taking a chance” means to take a risk, a gamble. To “learn from” means there was a lesson taught. Each character, Justin and Basil had a guest over. They may have learned something about their guest, but it wasn’t a lesson, and they took no “chances.” Perhaps the guest took a chance going into a strange house, but the hosts took no chances.This is an example of one of the sentences from the exemplar (a”4″) from the state: “In the “Excerpt from Buddha Boy” and the “Excerpt from One + One = Blue,” both Justin and Basil take chances….Justin takes a chance on inviting Jinson to his father’s studio. He thinks it would be fun to see his dad’s new art piece he is working on…..Basil takes a chance on inviting Tenzie to his house. Tenzie and Basil can get close but Tenzie gets a little too close. Both chances they take are similar. Both are very different.” (First of all Basil doesn’t invite Tenzie to his house, the book makes a point of mentioning that, the excerpt says nothing about it. Secondly, who is “he” in the “Buddha Boy” novel? It is not clear? Lastly, how are either sentences examples of taking “chances?” Yet, this is a 4? In addition, did anyone notice how the word Excerpt is included in the title. That is because Pearson made the word excerpt part of the title, and put it in quotes. This is one of two extended responses, the other made as little sense as this did. I can put up with passages at 9 – 12 grade level written 150 years ago before Webster’s dictionary was printed. I can put up with passages in the same test booklet that at a 3rd – 7th grade lexile with poor book reviews. I can put up with the same question requesting two details page after page after page, but I can not tolerate passages that do not include the answers to questions that have no relevance to the passage. Perhaps those who made the test wanted to say that Jinson was a Buddhist with a shaved head that cared little for material things and the trappings of the Western World; and perhaps they wanted to mention that Basil and Tenzie both had Synethesia, which made relationships difficult. But they didn’t, so the questions made no sense and had no support which made the exemplars ridiculous and nonsensical. In addition to their ridiculousness, the exemplars were poorly written and contained opinion rather than fact. For example in the end the exemplar read: “In conclusion, Justin and Basil both learn something. They both learn something very very different. One situation is better than the other.” (What in heavens name, do those sentences mean? Yikes, yikes and yikes) Where are the rest of the comments regarding this test specifically? Who cares about the planning page? The actual substance is incorrect, misleading and exemplars are poorly written. This didn’t teach a lesson to my students. It made them doubt themselves and the test. Pearson and Questar and those in power should be ashamed.
LikeLike
You may not be aware of the great confusion my students faced in Day 3 of the Fourth Grade ELA test. This test always has a paired passage with an essay. The directions were so confusing and lacked such detail that many students were not aware of what text they were to refer to. The directions for the second text said “Anwer questions 37 and 38.” The directions for the second text said “answer questions 39 and 40”. Question 40 was the essay. The directions for the essay said vaguely to “use the two articles” without naming the articles. The directions contradicted themselves and left fourth graders in a high stress situation to make decisions of what to do. No students should face such stress due to the lack of thoroughness of adults.
LikeLike
Quality control? Oversight?
Nope–Pear$on & companie$ go on their merry way$, collecting taxpayer$ (u$) money, all of which $hould be going into the public $chool$.
LikeLike